Survey Roundup

This article compiles the results reported from informal surveys circulated via the ALL-SIS listserv from January 2009 to mid-May 2009. Surveys that indicated that results are to be compiled or otherwise summarized in a presentation or article have been omitted.

Legal Research Teaching & Materials

Question:  Antiplagiarism software, Checkforplagiarism.net
Summary of responses:  Many requests to post results, but none from schools using the service (despite the company’s assurance that they had academic law libraries as customers):

• Many respondent schools use Turnitin, but it was less than ideal since it does not check against law reviews;
• Originally, author tested Checkforplagiarism.net using an excerpt from a Stanford Law Review article, which correctly identified the article;
• However, a couple of subsequent tests, using short excerpts from 5 or 6 different legal journals and other materials available on Westlaw proved less successful. In one, only 1 of 5 law review excerpts was correctly caught and identified.

“The bottom line seems to be that as of now, I cannot identify any law libraries that use the service, and I don’t feel that it is reliable enough to recommend to our faculty … [T]he consensus was that there was not currently a system useful enough for us to adopt.

Source:  Janet Sinder, Associate Director for Research Services at Thurgood Marshall Law Library, University of Maryland School of Law.
Posted March 3, 2009. Subject: Checkforplagiarism.net -- FOLLOW-UP.

Faculty/Student Services & Programs

Question:  Instruments for faculty survey on library resources
Summary of responses:  “[Author] was asked by several folks to post a summary of replies … [but] only received notes from two librarians … [with] broad information gathering instruments, focusing as much on the kinds of services faculty might need from librarians as on the types and formats of sources used and preferred.” Questions focusing specifically on format tended to ask -

• Are there resources you use that you strongly prefer to use in print? or
• Are there resources you use that you strongly prefer to use online?

Source:  Courtney Selby, Collection Development/Instructional Services Librarian at the Mabee Legal Information Center, University of Tulsa.
Posted March 12, 2009. Subject: RE: faculty survey query--focus on reduction of duplication--update.

Question:  Vendor-supplied printers from Lexis and Westlaw for student use
Summary of responses:  4 responses -

• Never had one - 3
• Had but removed them - 1 (ten years ago)
• Also, 2 libraries noted they had vendor-supplied printers for use by faculty, staff, and librarians.

Source:  William Logan, Reference Librarian at Heafey Law Library, Santa Clara University.
Posted March 18, 2009. Subject: Any schools that do NOT have Lexis and Westlaw printers? (Results reported via off-list email.)

New Publications, Resources and Technologies

Question:  Renewing and funding for AudioCaseFiles
Summary of responses:  10 responses -

• Not renewing - 1;
• Renewing or probably renewing - 4;
• Considering renewing or adding - 5;
• Funding - 6 respondents who mentioned budgetary source all stated that the entire subscription amount was paid out of library budget;
• Usage - 2 respondents who are renewing mentioned its popularity with students; 2 who are considering renewal stated it would depend on usage or user feedback; and 1 who is canceling mentioned lack of usage statistics. Another respondent mentioned a new feature of the service allowing online access to usage statistics (for registered account holders).

Source:  Michelle Pearse, Bibliographer for Anglo-American Law at Harvard Law School Library.
Posted February 7, 2009. Subject: summary of responses to Audiocasefiles inquiry

Question:  RSS feeds for new acquisitions in academic law libraries
Summary of responses:  list of links is now maintained and updated at www.aallnet.org/sis/allsis/committees/colldev/acq_rss.asp.

Source:  Courtney Selby, Collection Development/Instructional Services Librarian at the Mabee Legal Information Center, University of Tulsa.
Posted April 16 and 17, 2009. Subject: UPDATE: New Acquisitions & RSS feeds

Collection Management and Cataloging

Question:  Pros and cons of sharing OCLC symbol with main library
Summary of responses:  20 responses -

• Requests for summary of findings - 2;
• Against using a single OCLC symbol - 10 institutions;
• Using a single OCLC symbol - 6 institutions (8 responses):
• All 6 experienced some difficulties as a result of the decision, but 2 mentioned they have been able to function despite some difficulties.

Reasons mentioned for not sharing an OCLC symbol -

• Original cataloging and enhancement of OCLC records is credited back to law school’s account, which can offset the annual subscription cost;
• Want to be able to distinguish between copy cataloging done for law books by the main library or a law library, since law library copy cataloging should carry greater weight for cataloging purposes;
• WorldCat Collection Analysis tool cannot easily identify law collections for comparison of peer law libraries;
• Differences in cataloging practices and policies between the law library and its main library;
• Difficulty gathering statistics and information about law collection;
• Inter-Library Loan difficulties:  (a) slower process to sort requests; (b) differences in circulation policies; (c) borrowers must search though more libraries to find law books; (d) lending credit goes to the main library; (e) difficulty in honoring law library borrowing/lending agreements, which may include loans without charge.

Reasons mentioned for sharing -

• Presumed monetary savings;
• The law library isn’t autonomous.

Further details, including experiences of two libraries in transition (one moving to shared symbol, one establishing a separate symbol), are set forth in 2-page summary (Word) attached to posting.

Source:   Karen Douglas, Head of Technical Services at J. Michael Goodson Law Library, Duke University School of Law.
Posted May 5, 2009. Subject: Consolidation of OCLC Accounts With Your Main Library-Summary

Question: Usage tracking software (or other methods) for electronic resources
Summary of responses:  9 responses -

• Specific software or subscription services that were mentioned:
• EZproxy - 1;
• Onelog - 2;
• www.scholarlystats.com/ Scholarly Stats service - 1 (respondent was not in a law library);
• Serials Solutions - 2;
• Tdnet (not primary function but does provide some information) - 1.
• Several respondents described their procedures in detail:
• Technology/IT Helpdesk team keeps usage statistics on intranet, catalog and database links; also get usage reports from database providers and library software for catalog usage;
• Excel spreadsheets to track online reporting tools from Westlaw and LexisNexis (monthly basis);
• For vendors that do not supply or keep statistics, trying to implement EZproxy; Serials Solutions has “awesome set of tools” for those databases covered; JStor, Gale, CIAO, and Ebsco all have built in statistics functions; CCH and Gale provide them on request, and Hein provides statistics quarterly;
• Contact each vendor; some run report on request, others provide statistics through their website.

Source:  Aperna M. Sherman, Reference and Electronic Services Librarian at Texas Tech University Law Library.
Posted April 14, 2009. Subject: Responses to E-Database Statistics

Question:  Retention policies for paperback supplements to casebooks
Summary of responses:  22 responses -

• Keep supplements for casebooks that are currently in their collection - 12;
• Do not keep any supplements, regardless of existence of main volume in their collection - 8;
• Keep casebook collection for faculty use, no supplements or casebooks in general collection - 1;
• Keep neither casebooks nor supplements - 1.

Several respondents indicated that they keep only the most current supplements and discard earlier supplements.

Source:  Courtney Selby, Collection Development/Instructional Services Librarian at the Mabee Legal Information Center, University of Tulsa.
Posted April 14, 2009. Subject: UPDATE RE: donated casebook supplements--keep or toss?

Question:  Lexis or Westlaw links on OPAC shared with main university (some Westlaw titles are now covered by SFX link resolver)
Summary of responses:  6 responses -

• No - 2;
• Yes - 4.

The “No” respondents considered and investigated using SFX but identified some issues -

• Only interested in monographs (SFX includes primary material, jurisdictional monographs and serials); preferred Joni Cassidy monograph records for Lexis and Westlaw publications, as “Those records are much cleaner.”
• Entries for statutes and codes do not follow titles, e.g., “New York Statutes-Annotated” versus “McKinney’s consolidated laws of New York annotated.”
• Groupings of items by type, not title, e.g., “All Federal and State Cases.”
• Also noted records from the MarcIt! Service for the odd titles “may be disappointing” -
• No full bibliographic records for any titles without ISSNs;
• Brief records have very little chance of being replaced since there are no corresponding Conser records and no paper title equivalents;
• No way to choose brief records for some targets or objects and not for others.

The “Yes” respondents commented -

• With Westlaw content linked for about 2 years and LexisNexis for 1 year (data from Serials Solutions, highly recommended), discovery of treatises and other materials has “gone way up” (no statistics available), and is “a great convenience” to staff;
• “[M]any positive comments” from faculty, students, and alumni about using OPAC as a tool to discover Westlaw and Lexis resources;
• Helps with collection development and development of course pages;
• Benefits to core users far outweighs confusion or frustration for non-subscribers;
• Experienced few complaints from non-law patrons about access to database;
• Enables more comprehensive view of what is available for law student and faculty patrons, in all formats.

The “Yes” respondents also identified some downsides -

• Technical services staff must load data (matches are not great) and update for frequent changes in coverage;
• LexisNexis does not link to the journal level;
• Adding Cassidy records tended to only increase awareness for a population that cannot access the databases;
• For law students, it seems to create noise in the catalog;
• Experienced “lots of problems” with SFX and MarcIt records for LN Academic.

Source:  Connie Lenz, Associate Director for Collection Development at University of Minnesota Law Library.
Question posted February 17, 2009. Subject: WL & Lexis Databases in OPAC. Results transmitted off-list.